Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> ISinIP
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Intellectual Property Law
: ISinIPAriad v. Lilly - amicus diverge.
By thomason
My initial reading of the amicus briefs to the Federal Circuit, on the two en banc questions about the written description requirement, indicated two clusters of argument. There are contentions that the requirements “as applied” impact the life sciences harshly. Others contend that there is, or is not, a description requirement in 112,1 separate from having to enable.
The “as applied” contentions may have merit, or may be anecdotally accurate. Either way, anecdotes are not a sound basis for precedential rulings. The statute says what it says. No one would desire a result that allows a patent to issue, before the invention is to the point of invention. So sure, there are applications and issued patents that get treated harshly, especially if the final claim set is more a product of negotiation with the examiner than based on a restatement of the specification.
As part of my adjunct professor work, an amicus brief was filed with the assistance of law students in the IP Law Society at the University of Kentucky College of Law. It now is published on scribd.com, and accessible at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/22480653/Brief-UKIPLS-11-11-2009
Full post as published by ISinIP on November 12, 2009 (boomark / email).
Amicus Briefs in Ariad v. Lilly: American Intellectual Property Law Association
By Kevin E. Noonan -- The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) has joined the chorus of patent bar groups opining on whether there is a separate written description requirement contained in 35 U...
Federal Circuit Grants En Banc Review in Ariad v. Lilly
By Donald Zuhn -- The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today decided that the appeal in Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co. warrants en banc consideration. In June, Ariad filed a petition for rehearing of the decision issued by the Federal Circuit on April 3 (see "Ariad Files Petition for Rehearing in Ariad v...
Ariad Files Petition for Rehearing in Ariad v. Lilly
By Donald Zuhn -- Yesterday, Ariad Pharmaceuticals filed a petition for a panel rehearing of the decision issued by the Federal Circuit in Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co...
Ariad Patent Shot Down, Lots of Questions Remain
In Ariad v. Eli Lilly & Co. (08-1248) (a top 10 case for 2009), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit set out a split decision on a case addressing patent validity and enforceability issues where Lilly contends that the asserted claims of US 6,410,516 are invalid for including non-statutory subject matter, for being [...
Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co. (Fed. Cir. 2009)
By Andrew Williams -- On Friday, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., reversing the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts's denial of Lilly's motion for JMOL in view of a jury verdict of infringement and validity of the asserted claims, and affirming the District Court's ruling that Lilly failed to establish the affirmative defense of inequitable conduct...
Ariad plans appeal of loss in Amgen case in D. Del.
The Boston Globe noted: Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. of Cambridge said Sept. 22 that it plans to pursue the "appropriate legal action" after a federal judge ruled against it in a patent dispute...
Zyprexa Settlement
Costs Lilly $1.4 Billion









